[psysec] I'm interested, but in you

[Mike Murray]

What I'm saying is that we all do that naturally and unconsciously.
To try and separate it seems without distinction: your point could
have equally been made by saying:

"if you intentionally try to talk to me to manipulate me...."

Words are themselves anchors.  By me using "wack", it fired a whole
set of representations - that IS anchoring.





On 4/29/09, Gadi Evron <ge at linuxbox.org> wrote:
> Mike Murray wrote:
>> Are you serious?
>>
>> "Anchoring" is a weapon as much as any other part of framing. There's
>> no special super-power that makes it worse than me using authority, or
>> reciprocity, or any of Cialdini's elements.  (In fact, a strict
>> interpretation of "anchoring" would call those things anchors)
>>
>> Let me see if I understand you: if a woman wears perfume to try to get
>> you in to bed, it's a "weapon" of "manipulation"?
>>
>> That's wack, yo. ;)
>
> If you intentionally try to anchor something to manipulate me during
> communication, without my knowledge and consent, it is manipulative, yo.
>
>> -Mike
>>
>> P.sM what anchors did my last sentence set off?  Were you manipulated
>> by my weapon?
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

Mike Murray

Phone - 773-360-0658
Skype - mike.murray
Aim - mmepisteme